TETRA: Say no to an unsafe technologyfind out more information about TETRA

Campaign Against Tetra Siting (CATS): Norfolk meeting report, December 2004

 

The report on Stewart

Reported by Matthew Pennington, North Walsham

The meeting at Norwich City College was very well arranged and organised, and seemed even more important to the issue of telecoms mast siting than I had realised. The organisers were city Councillor Mick Banham, and Norwich North MP Ian Gibson, both of whom spoke. It was a shame that the meeting was so close to Christmas, on a cold winter night, as the attendance was smaller than it should have been. There were around 70 people in the hall, and the majority who spoke were senior people such as Councillors, Green party members and Friends of the Earth representatives, nationally recognised protestors, people involved in the Education service, etc. This meant that the meeting had a serious and intense atmosphere, with no rabble rousing or political manipulation displayed. The opportunity to express what is actually happening on the ground, regarding health effects, the power of the operators over planning authorities, and the uncaring attitude of operators, was well expressed. It was just unfortunate that there was not a fuller hall to add more weight to this.

The meeting was chaired by Eastern Evening News editor David Bourn. Younger than the rest of the panel, he was also able to express his views more radically and strongly, as he did not have to worry about his comments appearing in the press! The meeting was covered in the EEN on Saturday, but unfortunately did not appear in the EDP.

Local commitment

David Bourn opened the meeting, and expressed the commitment that his newspaper was giving with its ‘Put masts on hold’ campaign. He said that they were not anti-mobile, but wanted a more common sense approach to the whole subject, with better answers given to address health and safety fears, more care and caution shown over mast siting, and more government money allocated to research. He mentioned the number of health concerns in the past, Asbestos, BSE, Gulf War Syndrome etc., etc., where official assurances of safety had proved to be unfounded. He said that recommendations of the Stewart report had still to be acted upon especially a ‘precautionary approach until more robust scientific information becomes available’.

He then introduced Sir William Stewart, who seemed very lively and approachable for such a senior and distinguished figure. He is presently Chairman of the NRPB (National Radiological Protection Board), Chairman of the HPA (Health Protection Agency, set up April 2003, and to become a one stop shop for all issues of health and the environment including chemical, biological, and radiological). He is also holder of a PhD, a Professorship, and is a chief scientific advisor to the cabinet office.

Sir William Stewart

Sir William thanked Ian Gibson for the invitation, and spoke of the respect that Dr Gibson was held in, and his chairing of a recent international meeting into childhood leukaemia. He then announced that the IEGMP (Independent Experts Group into Mobile Phones) was going to update its report (The Stewart Report) early next year, and the reason he was attending this meeting was to hear what people had to say, and to use their views as part of this update. It was this announcement that made this meeting far more important than I had realised. (Sir William had asked some questions to some of the audience before the meeting began, and I had spoken about the North Walsham case with my usual incessant fervour).

He talked of the new Health Protection Agency, and said that the NRPB would eventually become part of this organisation. He then talked of the Stewart Report, and the care that had been taken to get a full picture from as many specialists as possible. He did not mention the reports of cancer cases near masts that the NRPB had not been able to ‘find’ at that enquiry; and comments he made later suggested that it will be a long time, if ever, before the industry will admit to being implicated in cancer formation.

He did, however, mention that the industry was misrepresenting the findings of his report. He cited section 1.17: ‘The balance of evidence to date suggests that exposures to RF radiation below NRPB and ICNIRP guidelines do not cause adverse health effects to the general population.’, 1.18: ‘There is now scientific evidence, however, which suggests that there may be biological effects occurring at exposures below these guidelines …’; also 1.19: ‘… populations … are not genetically homogenous and people can vary in their susceptibility … it is not possible at present to say that exposure to RF radiation, even at levels below national guidelines, is totally without potential adverse health effects, and the gaps in knowledge are sufficient to justify a precautionary approach.’

He said that the government had accepted most recommendations straight away. He also said that the pro-mobile lobby’s claims that the report says there are no adverse effects are not substantiated, especially regarding the report’s findings that the science was inconclusive, that there is a susceptible subgroup, and that people’s well-being was affected by mast installations.

He believed that the public demanded, and were entitled to, better information than they were being given; that experiments showing no effects from mobile radiation needed as careful checking as is being done to those that show some effects; and that information from bodies such as Ofcom, who are supposed to be randomly auditing base station emissions, needs to be made easier to access. At the end, he again stressed the need for a precautionary approach. I had the opportunity after the meeting to ask what he meant by that, as interpretations differ, and he told me with regards to mast siting that meant the operators doing all that they can in the circumstances to find the safest options.

At the end of his talk, it was apparent that many of the concerns over mobile phones and masts were being listened to. It was also clear that the development and spread of mobile technology was not going to be stopped, and there seemed little likelihood of the inadequacy of the safety guidelines in operation (the ICNIRP levels) being considered. It seems likely that they may be made more severe, but not by a large enough factor to ensure safety around base stations.

Ian Gibson, MP Norwich North

Ian Gibson MP spoke of many MPs receiving letters of concern regarding masts. He believed the public should have more say in where masts are sited, and District Councils and operators need to work together more, and take a more strategic approach. He said that at present we were not where we all wanted to be, but that continued pressure on Councils by the public should help to influence the Appeal courts, and produce more effective planning regulations.

Support from further afield

The public then had a chance to speak. Speakers included Michael Bell, a Scots Lawyer and environmentalist, and chair of the EM Radiation Research Trust (RRT), Eileen O’Connor, a highly respected protestor from Wishaw near Sutton Coldfield and RRT Trustee, Andy Davidson from Worthing who runs this Tetrawatch.net website, Councillors from Wolverhampton and Brighton, as well as local people and Ed Bober , Suzanne Stevenson and myself (Matthew Pennington) on behalf of North Walsham.

The public view generally was that planning guidance was unclear; that the balance of power suited operators and was unfair for local Councils, and they saw no evidence of this changing; that more research was required, especially looking at health effects around long standing masts; that safety guidelines appeared inadequate, etc. The one view that was expressed time and time again, and which it was pointed out Sir William had failed to mention, was that masts should not be sited close to schools, or in busy residential areas, owing to the particular vulnerability of children. As many speakers pointed out, if we are not even prepared to look out for the safety of our children, then we can hardly regard our society or culture as a civilised democracy. The irony of protecting children for 6 hours at school while they may live for 18 hours at home much nearer to masts, was pointed out.

Trying to read between the lines, it would appear that the government and industry realise that they will have to be more careful with mast siting in the future. With telecoms being so important to the economy, it still seems that they will fight tooth and nail to deny any health concerns except for a ‘susceptible sub group’. I believe that as transmitters become smaller, more widespread and more insidious, and our environment becomes ever more electromagnetically polluted, then it will become increasingly impossible to resist their spread and their influence.

In the meantime, it may become more possible to fight mast installations on their effect on general well-being, which would at least be effective on our doorstep. However, the special dangers of TETRA are unlikely to be highlighted until we have many more dead policemen, which is outrageous.

TETRA, North Walsham police station. Norfolk
TETRA on North Walsham police station, Norfolk. Skip the planning, skip the objections; just stick it where you like, O2!

This is the police station where officers, including a chief inspector, complained of the ill-effects.
 

Home    National    TETRA    Science    Links    Localities    Campaign    Contact us